Happy New Year's Eve (and New Year)!

Between the holidays, and receiving some great books over said holidays, I've been a bit distracted, so I've just got a quick New Year post this week, before getting back to more substantial posts next week. Overall, I think this year has gone very well, both for me, and for IRI. We now have substantial work going on in Mozambique, with several communities and over 50 churches involved in the process of personal, spiritual, and community development. We have also had great success in the Philippines, with several new partners and plans to return next year and the year after to expand the programs. We are continuing to build relationships and a reputation in Hong Kong, both with individuals, several churches, and the educational community. Finally, I was able to spend half of last year working at LCU, and have made plans to travel around the Midwest early next year. I'm glad we have been able to do so much, and look forward to next year.

Happy New Year everyone!

Insight Into Cognitive Systems: Extra Thoughts

The last (major) post covered the last of the Cognitive systems. Before I go into more on the implications of how our cognitive systems impact our lives, I want to make a few more points that will be relevant to the discussion:

Cognitive Systems are Habits

First, these systems are not formal methods of thinking that people choose to implement. They are, rather, terms or references for a group of mental habits that, taken together, determine how we interact with reality. For most people, the ways of thinking that their cognitive systems entail are not thought of as philosophies, or world-views, or even beliefs. If they are thought of at all, they are usually thought of as common sense. You don't talk much about common sense...it is foundation on which you have other discussions. This is, I think, one reason why this level of cognition generally gets overlooked--it is too basic to be easily seen. You don't, after all, see the foundation of a house, and cognitive systems are the "foundation" for how we reason, believe, and react.

Cognitive Systems are Not the Whole of Cultures

I have been using a few cultures as examples when explaining cognitive systems. I want to make clear, however, that cognitive systems are not the whole of any culture. I tend to think of cognitive systems as a set of shared mental habits in a culture. They are certainly foundational, but there is more to a culture than just one particular cognitive system. This is (at least in part) because...

Generalizations are Generally True

When talking about cognitive systems, it is important to remember that we are talking in generalizations. Generalizations are, by nature, imperfectly reliable. While it may be true that most of group X has a certian characteristic, it is almost certianly untrue that all of a group has that characteristic, unless it is required to be in the group. For example, it is generally true that Americans are more emotionally disconnected than other cultures, but there are a LOT of exceptions to this. Any particular American may be very well balanced emotionally and socially - the generalization only applies to the group as a whole.

In addition, it is possible that a single person may evidence different cognitive styles in different contexts. A scientist, for example, may be very ABC in the lab, but as soon as she gets home, she is more BCA, because that is the home environment she was raised in. Her thinking style shifts from one to the other, and she may be completely unaware of the shift. When I talk about cognitive systems and culture or among, we are speaking generally. I do not believe that every person in a cultural group must be BCA or ABC or CAB, nor do I even think that a certain person who I note is an ABC thinker may consistently be ABC in all places at all times. The way we think can shift, because our minds are flexible. This is a good thing, especially if we take the time to identify what our habits are, and focus on improving them.

All People Have the Same Toolbox (But Not the Same Skills)

One of the implications of this cognitive theory is that, with the single possible exception of people with physical brain damage, everyone has the same basic cognitive tools. Too often in the West, we have equated conceptualization with intelligence (thus, the IQ tests). Do not misunderstand, conceptualization and analysis are critically important, but they are simply tools. Some people don't use them as much as others, or may not even understand why they are important, but the tools are still there. Not knowing that you have tools, or how to use them does not make you dumb, just ignorant. As a colleague of mine says, "Ignorance is fixable, but you can't fix stupid." This is a critical point, as throughout much of recent western history, we have assumed that if people do not utilize a high degree of analytic thinking, they must be less intelligent, which has, in the past, led to two unfortunate results.

First, many people have acquired an assumption that people who do not evidence sufficient levels of conceptual./analytic reasoning are "dumb" or otherwise mentally less than those who do. Thus, people will tell me that they are not smart enough to do this or that, when the reality is that they don't have the mental habits that make such actions easy. People will assume that because it is hard for them, but easy for me, I am "smarter" than they are, when in fact, I am just more used to thinking in a particular way. This is problematic, because it encourages stasis, because someone who is "too dumb" simply can't do a thing, so they don't bother trying. The reality is that there is no such thing as "too dumb" there are only habits that people have or have not acquired to make some tasks easier.

Second, there is a strange assumption I run into that reason, logic, and analysis are somehow Western ways of thinking - that is, that they are some kind of creation of the West. This means that people will often conflate teaching conceptual thinking with "Westernization." The truth is that conceptual thinking is a tool that all human beings can use, and the more it is used, the more people are able to "own" their personal and cultural beliefs, attitudes, and actions. Conceptual thinking isn't "Western" it is human. Unfortunately, this, combined with the first assumption (that conceptual/analytic thinking determines mental worth) has resulted in some terrible attitudes toward cultures that do not have a habit of strong conceptual/analytic thinking. This is especially true in Africa, where I have heard several westerners lament about how the Nationals are "too dumb" to handle certain tasks - tasks which require that kind of strong conceptual/analytic thinking that was suppressed in their culture during the colonial period (a period many of the African cultures have not recovered from yet). Sadly, this has caused many to give up on some groups in Africa - including members of said groups. It is both tragic and terrible, and a situation that IRI is trying to counteract.

--------

So this was a fairly long post, but I think it covers a few extra thoughts that I wanted to explicitly address before moving on. Enjoy the holidays, and check back next year for more Incoming Insights!

Technical Delays

I've been having some trouble with consistent internet connections today. I'm trying to figure out what the issue is, but I have the feeling that it is holiday bandwidth bottleneck season. I'll update with another post once I get things sorted out.

Thinking About ABC

The ABC cognitive style is one that will seem very familiar to most westerners and many non-westerners. This is, in part, because the West has largely adopted ABC thinking as a cultural ideal. This is not to say that ABC thinking is uniquely (or even particularly) “Western,” however. ABC thinking is found in many cultures, and just because the West idealizes ABC cognition does not mean it is necessarily good at it.
In ABC thinking, the strongest priority is on the abstract and analytic, which allows for a great amount of reflection over both the B and C elements of cognition. Generally, the attitude of ABC thinkers is that C is important, but unreliable as a source of truth. I may have an intuition that there is danger, but I may also have indigestion, and without reflection (A), I have difficulty deciding which is which. B, by contrast, is much more reliable, but my perceptions can deceive me, and habits come in both good and bad types. In order to distinguish accurate from inaccurate perceptions, and good from bad habits, I need to reflect and analyze what I am perceiving or doing.
As a result of this attitude, ABC cultures tend to place a strong emphasis on the rational. What is reliable, they argue, is what can be demonstrated through reason to be true. This is not to say that tradition, habit, emotions, and social connections are unimportant—simply that they should be moderated through reflection and careful consideration which is, by nature, abstract (A). In some cultures, however, this can lead to a suspicion to aspects of life that are not entirely dictated by reason. In such cases, it is the C aspect of cognition that tends to suffer most, as it is primarily reactive and, as such, not subject to much reason. This is one reason why, in American culture, reason is often seen as opposed to emotion (A vs C) instead of complimentary to it (A&C together). This is an incorrect perception, but one that has become somewhat popularized in Western culture. ABC cognitive styles, however, do not require this kind of “reason vs emotion” approach.

Delay - Sorry

Due to some recent personal events, I am running behind. The blog (which I planned to be up yesterday) will be delayed until tomorrow.

Hong Kong Report

I've been back from Hong Kong for about a week, and I am still a bit jet lagged. The trip back was a fairly uneventful 32 hours, but I fear I have not entirely recovered. My time in Hong Kong was, however, very enjoyable and fruitful. I was able to work with Al and Kitty on a variety of training projects. Al and I also got a chance to review some of our respective observations and theories as well as set up some long term plans for IRI.

As always, the people we are working with were great. Linda, our host, was a great sport about having more guests than beds (I slept on a couch while I was there). She also worked with Al on training programs at church, eventually taking over the training herself. Kitty, our HK board member, also worked with Al and me on church training programs. I think that Linda and Kitty are an excellent start on developing new trainers in Hong Kong, but we will certainly be looking for more as we go along. I was also able to work with Kitty on a number of teacher training programs for some of the local schools. Like last year, we primarily focused on SEN (special educational needs) schools, whose teachers face particular challenges which require creative and adaptable thinking. In addition, Kitty arranged for me to be a keynote speaker at an educational conference. The audience was primarily senior teachers and principals, although we had some education students and a few parents, as well. The presentation was on building relationships in educational environments, and (from what I could tell) was well received. It was a great opportunity, and I'm glad I was able to present to such a great audience.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to work in Hong Kong. It is a great place, and I love working with everyone there. Currently, our plans are to return next year - Al will be back for a short time in the Spring, and I should be back for another round of teacher training in the fall. We hope to increase our presence in educational and professional development, and to that end, I have begun looking into PhD programs to provide additional credentials for our program, and to advance my own knowledge and formal academic research on our theories and strategies for human development. I'll keep everyone posted as that plan develops.

Speaking of theories, I should finally be back to ABC thinking next week with...the ABC cognitive style.

Return to the U.S.A.

I am headed back to the States - the trip should take about 23 hours or so. I expect I will be next to useless for about a day after getting back, what with jet lag and all. I hope to have a bigger post later this week detailing some of the highlights of the trip. Next week, we will be back to the ABCs of ABC!

Busy Week, Not Much Posting

My time in Hong Kong has been very interesting and exciting. I have been working on teacher training, youth programs, and long-term plans for IRI. Unfortunately, this doesn't leave me with as much time to put together more on the ABC concepts. Sorry for the delays. I will be in Hong Kong for one more week, which will continue my busy schedule. I plan to be back on track to continue the overview of the theories behind our work once I get back to the U.S.

I have had a chance to talk with some of our overseas team members at length while here, and have learned more about how some of our ideas have been impacting the people we are working with. I want to include an analysis of some of that information in later posts, but the short version is that things are going very well in terms of our human development programs. The long version will have to wait for a more in-depth blog (or two). In the meantime, I will post a summary of the Hong Kong trip once I get back to the States (or next week, if I can carve out the time).

Thinking About ACB - Mystical Conceptualization

We're back to the ABC theory of cognition this week! I am still running all over Hong Kong doing training and meeting people, so this week's entry will be another short one. My schedule is still subject to change without notice, so time will tell if I am able to fit in the final cognitive system before I return to the U.S.

ACB is the second of the hypothetical-but-not-actual cognitive systems identified by Dr. Cook. In theory, it would be highly conceptual, with a focus on abstract development and analysis, and have an immediate focus or emphasis on the mystical/emotional. Like CAB, it would have a low priority or even skepticism about the concrete world. As far as we can tell, there isn't an actual cultural representation of this way of thinking. It would seem a logical direction for applied existentialism or postmodernism to run, but most advocates of existentialism were bigger on theory than daily living, meaning they were more likely ABC (or abC) than ACB. Postmodernism is a recent enough cultural phenomenon* for us to determine the cognitive system that it practically develops or incorporates into its worldview.

---------------------------------------------------------------
* I mean its adoption in actual living cultures instead of simply being advocated in academic circles

Continuing Adventures in Hong Kong

Yesterday, I was given the honor of working with the faculty and staff of the PLK Anita L.L. Chan (Centenary) School in Hong Kong. This is a specialized school working with primarily students with special educational needs. The students got the day off during our full-day training session. We spent an entire day investigating ABC thinking, teamwork, and personal development. The class was engaged and excited, and our responses were good, overall. There were a few issues with language, which is to be expected when your speaker (me) is English-speaking and your class is Cantonese-speaking (but English proficient). For many of the participants, this was the first time for them to exercise their English skills for some time. Fortunately, our board member Kitty Ho was also presenting, and led most of the more conversation-intensive activities. Overall, a good and productive time was had by all. Thanks again to the faculty and staff for giving me the opportunity to work with such wonderful people!

Our participants during an activity

Arrived in Hong Kong

I have arrived in Hong Kong. I am still a bit jet-lagged and trying to get settled in, so there won't be a regular post this week. I have a busy schedule while I am here, but I will try to get the next cognitive system overview up for next week.

Tired now, time to sleep.

Travel Prep and Delayed Posts

I am preparing for a trip to Hong Kong to do some work with local educators and teach some workshops. I will be traveling next weekend, and arrive late Sunday, so next week's post will probably just be a short update, too. I will continue the overview of our ideas/philosophy of cognition as soon as I can - probably Nov. 3rd at the latest. Sorry for the delay.

The next post will be from Hong Kong!

Thinking about CBA: Mystical Materialism

Where CAB appears to arise from and lend itself to an analytical form of mysticism, CBA shares characteristics with BCA. Where BCA has a strong focus on tradition followed by emotional/mystical considerations, CBA places the greatest emphasis on relational/mystical harmony.  Because of this, spiritual harmony and the family become a substantial deciding factor in how we would understand and act in the world. As with CAB, the mystical/emotional is given the highest decision-making priority, but it is strengthened not by analysis, but by tradition and rote learning. The goal of such thinking is less to transcend the physical world, but to ensure the proper functioning of the entire world, physical and mystical. Analytic and conceptual thinking assists with this, but is not generally given a strong priority. This is not to say that CBA people or cultures are incapable of abstract thinking. In fact, one of the cultures Dr. Cook identified as predominately CBA was Japanese culture – a culture known for high levels of technological and scientific development. It is not the strength of A that is in dispute, but the priority it has on daily decision making and understanding. For CBA thinkers, relationships and tradition are often most important, while reason or logic often take on a supplementary role in their cognitive system.

As with CAB cultures, Dr. Cook's direct exposure to CBA cultures was limited. IRI has not had much interaction with these cultures, either, so much of our assessment of the implications of CBA thinking come through analysis or second-hand. This is an area we hope to correct in the future, as learning more about this style can only improve our ability to understand all cognitive systems.

Thinking About CAB: Conceptualized Mysticism

Dr. Cook originally identified CAB thinking as a cognitive style common to people groups with a history of formal discussion of spiritual matters. One of his primary examples was Hinduism in India,* which has a (very) long history of religious exploration and discussion. CAB cultures tend to emphasize the spiritual component of such discussions over the analytic/conceptual component, with a goal of transcending our human understanding. Values in this system are not particularly “earthly,” and as a result, the concrete reality is often viewed with skepticism. Instead, the focus is on mystical enlightenment to overcome the illusion of mundane life (whether that illusion is metaphorical or literal would depend on the particular belief system). In many cases, this is accomplished through understanding “higher truths” about reality, which are often organized and structured into a more formal religion or sets of principles. Thus, the mystical (C) component of thought is given the highest priority, and is strengthened through understanding (A). The tangible world and our operations in it, however (B), are not necessarily seen as particularly important, in the grand scheme of things, and attentiveness to one's physical state or environment is often devalued.

Unfortunately, Dr. Cook's contact with cultures he believed were strongly CAB was limited. We are beginning to investigate this area of cognition more with our work in South Pacific and Asian cultures; we have already had nationals identify characteristics of CAB thinking in Buddhism, for example.  I, personally, believe there may also be some evidence of this kind of thinking among some western animist practices (often lumped into the category of paganism), as well as certain ascetic traditions recorded throughout the history of the Christian Church. In any case, we look forward to further investigation into this cognitive style and its ramifications.

-----------------------------------------------------
*I feel obligated to note that generalizations are generally true. India and Hinduism contain several examples of CAB approaches to understanding, but this does not mean that all Indians or Hindu practitioners are CAB thinkers.

BAC Thinking: A Theoretical Cognitive System

Let's finish off our B-prioritized systems. Where BCA is a very commonplace system, however, BAC represents one of the (as far as we know) purely theoretical thinking styles. That is, we haven't encountered any cultures which seem to evidence a priority on concrete particulars, followed by abstract reasoning, and then taking the emotional/mystical into consideration. With that caveat, allow me to take a moment to speculate wildly.



Since B, as we mentioned before, is strongly grounded in concrete reality (the physical world and things we do in it), and tends toward habituation and past experience for decision-making, we would expect that a BAC culture (or individual) would show evidence of the same traditionalism and attention to detail as a BCA culture. The main difference, however, would be an emphasis on conceptualization over the emotional/mystical. In cultural terms, this might also mean a lower prioritization of social and/or religious ties that we see in many BCA cultures, such as African tribes. Note that this does not mean family or social bonds are necessarily weak – just that “good” decision making takes into account tradition first, then analysis, then emotional, mystical, or social implications. Such a society might look very traditional in its operation, but have substantial areas of innovation and development that occur according to socially-ingrained protocols or procedures. On the other hand, strong social traditions are often a result of social pressure (motivated by C), which is weaker in this type of thinking structure. Perhaps a strong state which sets broad parameters within which individuals can innovate and conceptualize, but doesn't have a strong relational aspect to it? That may resemble some fictional dystopia, but most totalitarian regimes tend to substantially suppress their people, which appears to result in a “survival mode” BCA mindset.




This style is one of two that Dr. Cook described as mathematically possible, but non-cultural. That is, the math works out such that the system could exist, but the structure of human society and human nature don't really allow it to be the case. On the other hand, it may just be that we are looking for the wrong cues for this type of thinking, and there is, in fact, a person or culture that does embody this kind of thinking. If so, finding such a person or group would be tremendously helpful in advancing our understanding of human cognition.

Examples of Cognitive Systems: BCA Thinking

Mathematically, there are only six ways that A, B, and C can be prioritized: ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, and CBA. Each of these different systems of prioritization produce very different ways of thinking. They don't just determine what we think about, but also what we consider “normal” thinking. (Note that we do not necessarily always equate “normal” with “good,” but that is a discussion for later.) The point here is that, no matter what our prioritization, we tend to assume that everyone else thinks the same way we do, and we can be shocked or frustrated when we encounter thinkers of a different sort.

These cognitive systems both shape and are shaped by culture. As such, we can talk about “ABC culture,” or a specific person being an “ABC thinker.” It is important, however, to remember that generalizations are generally true. It is entirely possible to have BCA thinkers who come from an ABC culture, or ABC thinkers who come from a CBA culture. These system designations aren't intended to be a substitute for personality profiles or other psychological or anthropological models of human behavior – just a new perspective that may shed light on past and future observations and interactions.

I'll be looking at each of the six possible combinations separately. Some of these systems have been observed in specific cultural settings, while others remain largely theoretical. That is, we are pretty sure some people are BCA thinkers, but we have not encountered anyone we would really call a BAC thinker, yet. I will note how much real interaction we have had with each system.

Let's begin.

BCA – Materialistic Mysticism

We start with the BCA system because it is one of the most common cognitive systems we have encountered. It is found in many cultures around the world, and is, therefore, a rather common way of thinking. This system focuses on the particular, concrete aspects of reality, with a strong emphasis on emotional connections. Reflection and analysis are not emphasized, and, in some cases, are nearly absent. This system was dubbed “materialistic mysticism” by Dr. Cook. BCA thinking does not mean people cannot analyze or reflect on their experiences, only that such reflection is of secondary importance to the traditions and habits of their daily lives. In a BCA culture, the primary reason for doing is thing is simply because that is what you do.

We have encountered BCA thinking primarily in “survival” oriented contexts – situations in which, usually out of necessity, people need to focus primarily on day-to-day survival. Subsistence cultures, like many we have worked with in Mozambique, are a common example.^* I know of a westerner in Mozambique who asked one of the locals why they performed a certain task in a particular way. The response was: “because that is how we do it.” To the westerner, this sounded evasive – we typically expect an analysis of the reasons for undertaking an action, and failing to give those reasons when asked is seen as giving an incomplete or inadequate answer. For the Mozambican, however, this was a perfectly reasonable answer. You do what you do because you do it. Tradition and habit are the primary means of decision-making.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

* I am not claiming that all Mozambican tribal people think this way, just that we have frequently encountered this way of thinking among tribes in Mozambique. Generalizations are generally true.

ABC Thinking and Dr. Stuart Cook

Before I go any farther in my overview, I feel compelled to note that these theories are not mine. They were developed by Dr. Stuart Cook, a missionary and anthropologist who worked in South Africa for over 30 years. The IRI website has his books available, if you want his explanation of these theories. Most of the information in this series is based on his book The Thought That Counts.

You can get it here: http://www.insightagentsofchange.com under the Media tab.

The summary I have here is my take on his work, and may not match all his original ideas exactly. Like any good ideas, they serve as the foundation for additional work and development.

Day Delay

Due to various factors, there is a delay of a day on the next post. Tomorrow, look for an overview and examples of BCA thinking. Sorry for the delay.

ABC Thinking (3): Putting Thoughts Together - How A, B, and C Relate

There are two primary considerations to keep in mind when talking about how the different aspects of our thinking relate to each other. The first is the relative strength of each aspect – some people are more emotional (C) than others, while others are relatively emotionally distant. There are highly rational (A) people who are good at problem-solving, while others find analytic work taxing or tedious. Some people have great attention to detail (B), while others don't attend to the particulars of their environment. Each person has different strengths.

The second consideration is the priority we place on each aspect in relation to the others. Depending on people's backgrounds, they can prioritize different aspects of their thinking process. This is not simply having a strong aspect as noted above, but more a matter of which aspect you trust more. That is, when someone accuses you of “thinking poorly,” which aspect of thinking can they use to correct you?

If A has the highest priority, you would expect to be corrected by reason and analysis – asking questions like “why?” and “how?” to determine if you are making the best decision. For A priority people or cultures, “good thinking” is conceptual/analytic thinking.

If B is highest, then you would expect to be corrected based on prior experience – what are the rules? What does tradition dictate? What are our customs? For high B, adherence to custom or tradition can override a conceptual or analytic argument, even if that argument is logical and appears to be true.

If C has the highest priority, you would general accept correction most often based on emotional or relational appeal. Who did this (and did he or she have the authority)? What will X (my family, neighbors, friends, etc.) think? What should we (as a group) do? What is best for us? For high C, relational or emotional considerations may trump even law or logic.


Most people will recognize that everyone, at some point, asks questions that reflect each of the A, B, and C aspects of thought. This is right and proper – all three aspects are part of our cognition. To exclude any aspect is to literally lose our mind. The differences in relative strength and prioritization of each aspect, however, can make a tremendous difference in how we approach our lives on an individual, local, and global level.

Up Next: Examples of Different Strengths and Priorities

Net Neutrality

As someone who puts things on the internet, and as someone who works for an organization that depends on the internet for our work. The idea of allowing corporations to dictate (more than they already do) who gets what access when is a very scary idea.

Net Neutrality is essentially the idea that the Internet should be treated as a public resource that forms a foundation for business (like phone lines), rather than a specific type of service (like cable TV). Currently, this is not the attitude the U.S. government seems to have about what is possibly the most powerful resource ever created by man. Today is a day to raise awareness of the idea of Net Neutrality, and to try, at least in the U.S., to get the government to see what it really is, and how it needs to be treated.

What is ABC Thinking (2): Three Components of Thought

When I talk about ABC thinking, I am referring to the practical application of a theory I call the ABC Theory of Cognition, originally developed by Dr. Stuart Cook in South Africa. Please do not confuse the ABC Theory of Cognition (which I am discussing here) with the ABC model of behavior. While they may have a few things in common, they are fundamentally different approaches to understanding how humans work.

The ABC Theory of Cognition if founded on the idea that the way we think (also called our cognitive process) can be broken into three discrete aspects of thought. Each of these aspects has a particular focus, and when you put them together, they make up the way we acquire, process, and react to information about the world. For simplicity, these aspects are labeled “A,” “B,” and “C” - thus, the name of the theory. These aspects of thought are ways of knowing. That is, they give us knowledge of our world, albeit in different ways. Our strength with of each of these aspects and the priority we give them is the structure and pattern of our thinking.

Aspect A: The Conceptual

The “A” aspect of our thinking has to do with concepts and abstract thought. This includes, but is not limited to, identifying concepts, categorization, analysis, synthesis, and comprehension. It is what we in the west most often call to mind when we say the word “thinking,” though other cultures might have different standards for "good" thought.  This is also the aspect of our thought that focuses on our thinking – what we call reflection or introspection.

Aspect B: The Concrete

The “B” aspect of our thinking focuses on the tangible world, and our memory of it. All our experiences are processed through the “B” aspect of our thinking first, with the exception of our internal reflections. It covers all sensory information, and our memory of those sensations, and includes our attention to detail.

Aspect C: The Emotional/Intuitive

The “C” aspect of our thinking focuses on our non-perceptual, non-rational response and connection to our environment. In particular, it includes our emotions (internal reactions to events) and our intuitions (a more complex reaction that provides input on external factors beyond our personal reaction). It also includes various kinds of “mystical” connections to our environment, as found in many religious experiences. This aspect of thinking has, traditionally, been considered suspect in the West, but does give us important information about ourselves and our environment.


Next up: Putting The Aspects Together

What is ABC Thinking?

It has occurred to me that, while I have talked about what I do from time to time, I haven't gone into a lot of detail about the underlying philosophy and theories that drive what IRI is about. That should be corrected, I think. So for the next few months, I will be discussing the basics of some of our core ideas. The first, and perhaps most critical of these is the idea of ABC Thinking.

Caveats

Before I begin, I want to make a few notes for the more scholarly minded. First, this is a basic overview, not an academic defense. The goal is to introduce ideas and help people understand what I do and why, not present a full dissertation on the topic. (Who knows? That might come later.) As such, I will be avoiding technical terms as much as my philosophy upbringing will let me. Second, This is a brief overview – I don't intend to go into every detail about the theories (though if there is interest, I may go back over some areas and dive deeper). Finally, this is a blog, so it will probably be a bit informal. You have been warned.

Also keep in mind that this is a theory that identifies problems and seeks a solution. I do not consider it the theory, or the end-all of psychology, anthropology, or whatever other discipline it may touch. This is the world as best we at IRI understand it, and our ideas should be taken as starting points for discussion, not concrete conclusions about reality.

Next Monday: Getting Started - The ABC Theory of Cognition

Changeing to Google

I have made a change in my blog to link it to my Google+ account. For those friends of mine on Google+ who were happy only hearing from me very infrequently, sorry. I finally decided to start tying systems together to see what happens.

Moved!

I am now settled in Spokane, WA. I am currently setting up meetings with local contacts to see what we can get going in the Pacific Northwest, and am trying to get connected with our Northwest supporters. If you are living in the Northwest, and want to talk about what I do with IRI, please feel free to leave me a message, or send a request via our website. All you need to do is mention Jason (that's me) or the blog (Incoming Insights) in your message, and it will get to me.

Moving

I am in the process of moving, so I probably won't have anything to post until I am done. Who knew that packing up an apartment's worth of stuff would take so much effort? I will try to post before the end of the month, but most likely, I won't be available again until July. See you then!

Too Much Information?

“Where is the Life we have lost in living?

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?

Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?”

—T.S. Eliot, The Rock (1934)

Every so often, you come across a thought that hits you hard.  As I have mentioned before in this blog, one of the greatest struggles the Mozambicans, or any historically suppressed people, face is an atrophied ability[1] to conceptualize. This often stems from a focused attempt by colonial or other oppressive powers to discourage their second-class (or lower) population from learning too much. This is terrible, but understandable and even expected, given the nature of power and what some people will do to hold onto it.

What is more disturbing, however, is to see symptoms of low conceptualization skills appearing in what are supposed to be (at least theoretically) “free” cultures[2]. As a teacher at the undergraduate level in the U.S., I have encountered many students who come from middle-class, if not affluent backgrounds, who have difficulty identifying cause-and-effect relationships, analyzing and prioritizing information, and generally understanding concepts, as opposed to mere memorization of facts. These characteristics are similar to those we find in historically suppressed cultures. Clearly, many of the students do not act like a suppressed people group, so barring abuse or other abnormal trauma, what would cause this lack of conceptualization in what is, for all intents and purposes, a conceptually-oriented culture?

It isn't that I am identifying anything new, either—most educators are aware of a general reduction of academic ability in U.S. students. It has been happening for years and continues to worsen, despite attempts to improve curriculum and develop more educational programs. What T.S. Eliot has pointed out, however, is that this may not just be a matter of poor education as much as it is an incorrect focus on the content of the lessons. That is, we are teaching students to acquire and regurgitate data and information—history, math, science, etc.—instead of helping them understand how to use the data they have available.

With the rise of the internet, we are now overwhelmed with information. Children today have access to more information than any other generation in known history. It is said you can learn nearly anything that humanity knows through the World Wide Web. The problem isn't with the information itself, but with understanding what to do with it. It is all too easy to just take information and apply it to situations it seems to fit, and presume we have an answer. I see this all the time in my teaching (often in the form of plagiarism, when a student fails to cite where they got their information). Unfortunately, this is usually not enough. Having information is useless unless you understand how to apply it. Explaining how to organize and prioritize the data you have, as well as identify the consequences and formulate a response, is not something that we are currently teaching in most schools. Others are voicing similar opinions, and I feel the need to add my own voice to the chorus: we need to stop focusing on teaching students data, and start focusing on teaching students data organization, analysis, and problem-solving.

This will help students make better use of the massive amount of information that is available. I do not mean that they will merely to be better at research, but they will be better able to determine what information is important to their personal goals and development. That is, they need to know not only what data will help them in class or at work, but what will help them become better people. This way, they can not only have information, but also knowledge, that is, a personal comprehension of the data. Understanding how to use this knowledge helps us develop wisdom. It is my hope that such wisdom can help people learn how to truly live.

---

[1] As always, lack of ability in no way implies lack of capacity. Just because no one ever taught you how to drive a car, it doesn't mean you can’t learn—it just means you haven’t.

[2] For my purposes, a “free” culture is one which has not been deliberately suppressed in the recent memory of its people. Many (though not all) Caucasian people groups would fit this category, as well as some Asian groups, and a few others.

Incoming Insights: Direct and Indirect Identity

In the last article, I explained some of the discoveries we have made at IRI about learning. I want to expand a bit on that and talk about how the ideas of direct and indirect understanding impact self-identity. We have found this is important when helping others improve themselves.

As I covered in the previous post, people tend to learn things in one of two ways – directly, through personal comprehension of an idea, or indirectly, by learning someone else’s ideas. In general, we learn indirectly at first, but our ultimate goal should be direct understanding. This is especially true when we are learning about our own personal identity.

If someone points out that we learn about ourselves from others, many of us would understand what was meant. I learn about who I am initially from my parents, my siblings, my extended family, and my friends. They tell me my name, that I am a human, what ethnic group I belong to, and other interesting things about me. Eventually, however, I start to formulate my own ideas about things: blue is a prettier color than other colors, science is more interesting than art (or vice versa), cauliflower is yucky, and so on. Over time, I understand that I am myself, and other people are not me. In a healthy environment, I also understand that I am responsible for myself. Ideally, I develop a direct self-identity; I am me, and I know who I am.

In reality, however, the final parts of this are a bit easier said than done. Most of us constantly struggle with other people’s perceptions of us. Sometimes this is good, as others can help me see things about myself that are valuable or need developing that I had missed. All too often, however, this is a negative experience, as others see me as too short, too fat, too ugly, or otherwise inferior or deficient. We struggle between understanding ourselves directly (having a strong internal sense of who I am), and understanding ourselves indirectly (seeing ourselves as others see us) for most of our lives. We want to use what we learn from others (indirectly) to form a correct direct understanding of ourselves. We don’t always succeed, but we know understand our goal.

Unfortunately, the ideal sometimes gives way to the terrible. In some situations, our ability to develop our own direct understanding of ourselves is stifled or suppressed. There are many scenarios where this can happen: abusive families, overbearing teachers or supervisors who will only accept their understanding of things, and nearly every case of slavery or broad cultural oppression. In these cases, our ability to form a direct understanding of ourselves is squashed in favor of a second person’s understanding. We are told someone else already knows everything there is to know about us (or at least everything important). Our identity is forged by proxy, and we develop an indirect identity.

This indirect identity creates a sense of dependency—I now need this second person, because it is through that person that I understand myself. I suppose this could be acceptable if the other person understood me perfectly, but that’s not possible (other people are no more perfect than I am, after all). As a result, I become dependent on this second person for my identity, and the associated sense of well-being and security that goes along with having a sense of self.

This is a dangerous situation. We have discovered that this dependent sense of self seems tied to a displaced sense of responsibility. One of the issues we have encountered among suppressed people groups is a sense that they are not in charge of their lives. Not simply that they are being controlled, but that they really aren't responsible for what happens to them. Our theory is that since their identity is tied up in their suppressor, it causes them to identify their suppressor as the one responsible for their lives. Thus, I am not responsible for what happens to me—the person I depend is responsible. This displaced sense of responsibility makes it difficult for people to act on their own behalf in areas of importance. Even more tragically, since long-term changes are out of their control, their only sense of agency tends to come from self-gratification.

Ironically, as long as the suppressor remains, this situation is livable. I can get along in life, as long as I have this second person (who is responsible for me) telling me what to do. I may not like that they are in charge, but I am accustomed to it, and have learned to live within the arrangement to the best of my ability. Once the suppressor is removed, however (whether by an external liberator, or by my own rebellion), things get tough. Now I discover that I don’t know who I am. In addition, I am accustomed to having a suppressor, and all my habits are oriented around that end. It makes a tragic sense, then, that many people from abusive relationships return to their abuser or end up in similarly abusive situations later. On a large scale, it means that a suppressed culture will have a tendency to look for a new “substitute” for their old oppressor. This is not necessarily a conscious decision—it is a consequence of habit.

This is a tragic cycle--one that is self-reinforcing once started. Impressions and repeated behavior, over time, become habits. These habits, over time, spread throughout the culture. Habits repeated throughout the culture are eventually seen as normative. Thus, the culture itself can serve to reinforce this sense of helplessness and displaced identity. The people of such a culture may lament their position, or think it perfectly acceptable, but at the end of the day, it is just the way things are.

Fortunately, these issues can be addressed. I'll discuss how we have been working to break these cycles next month.

Away Longer Than I Thought

Well...so much for two posts in December.

This is only technically a post in January, so I have to admit to having effectively missed another month. In my defense, I was busy in December and January: December was a trip to Spokane, WA and January included a trip to Manhattan, KS. In addition, I had fall semester wrap-up and spring semester start-up and Christmas in between. So I was busy, but I still feel like I should have gotten another post in.

In order to keep this from being entirely an apology post, I will take a bit of space to discuss part of IRI's theories on cognition and learning. Specifically, the difference between what we refer to as "Direct" and "Indirect" understanding. I don't claim these ideas are new - I have seen allusions to them in several places - but they are a pretty core part of what we've been working on, and I think it is interesting stuff.

Essentially, direct understanding is grasping an idea, and understanding it in a way that makes it "yours." That is, you are comfortable enough with the concept that you can examine, review, critique, and modify the concept based on how it relates to other ideas without having to resort to asking others what to do with it. Indirect understanding, on the other hand, is grasping an idea through an intermediary - a teacher, a book, a blog, etc. Initially, all our understanding is indirect, but our goal is a direct understanding of any important concepts we work with.

One of the problems we have run into in our work is that most teaching (nearly all, really), emphasizes indirect understanding. That is, we learn through others - I give you information, and then we're done. In some contexts, this is necessary (like this blog, where I am limited in how I can engage you, the learner), and often isn't a real problem. Often, the data alone is sufficient to our purpose.

Unfortunately, there are many cases where ideas need to be internalized to use them successfully - as in the case of any scenarios that require manipulating the ideas to form new conclusions (analysis, problem solving, etc.). In these cases, the learner needs to form a direct understanding of key concepts in order to develop new ideas, but, all too often, our educational system simply leaves them with an indirect understanding. This can drastically hinder the process of innovation and adaptation in both an individual and a culture. A lot of our work at IRI goes into figuring out ways to help people move from indirect to direct understanding in areas critical for their development.

Fortunately, there are ways to do this, and once we get people thinking about how to make that transition, they start to develop their own systems in addition to what we have come up with - a kind of learning snowball effect. Developing direct understanding, however, is often a slow, time consuming process, at least at first. This is one reason why IRI's programs seemed to only progress slowly in the first few years, and then we suddenly started talking about the multiple business start-ups, new training programs in the works, etc. The initial start is a slow burn, but once the project gets going, well...there is a reason we don't feel that we need to be in Mozambique all the time now. The Mozambicans, having developed a direct understanding of several key principles of development, are now developing themselves like crazy.

It's amazing, and there is much more I can say (and probably will later), but I think I have a long enough post for today. Have a great new year, and thanks for your interest!